Nick's Flick Picks the 2008 Honorees in full swing. WootNY Times on the new twin DVD of Magnificent Obsession. (sigh) don't you love that movie? I mean, the Sirk versionMNPP intriguing quotes on I Love You Phillip MorrisMTV Cher is returning to the movies. Yay!

And two more to send you on your way...

For Martin Luther King Day i09 has a cool post on the great man's influences in science fiction comics, film and television. And finally, here's further proof that Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) is not really in 5th place for Oscar's Supporting Actor race anymore... (the exchange starts at about the 36 second mark)

I think I'm now rooting for some weird universe in which Dev Patel gets in instead of Philip Seymour Hoffman. That's the only context in which I can be really thrilled for him, no matter how much I adore his personality and am rooting for him in life.

Katey... i like your scenario ;). I am starting to get the Dev Patel thing. I mean, he IS adorable. I just don't think it's much of a performance. Certainly many nominations have been handed out on adorability in the past and will continue to be.

Jorge, I don't think it's that surprising he didn't say it back - I'd be surprised if he's even seen Rachel Getting Married. Anyway, I'm completely charmed by him ("I love you in all of your movies! Can I have a hug?!?") and I think Katey hit it on the head. I'm just rooting for him.

Look, people loved the film. Nothing odd about this really. If it won only half of the Best Picture prizes it has and won the BFCA but missed the Globes and maybe missed out on that SAG ensemble I'm sure this "backlash" wouldn't exist or not to this extent anyways.

If Patel gets nominated and/or Slumdog Millionaire wins Best Picture will it be awful? No. God knows there have been Oscar nominees and Best Picture winners that have been far less deserving.

Forget Slumdog and Dev, I love Viola! She gave such a wonderful performance, I don't care how little screen time she had, she was fabulous! I hope to hell she isn't snubbed and she walks away with the Oscar!

Shawn, of course it wouldn't exist. You can't have a backlash against something that isn't popular. But it would stand that many of the people who don't care for Slumdog still wouldn't care for it if it wasn't winning prizes.

I guess awarding Patel on "cuteness" is alright in an equal opportunity sort of way (they've been doing that with actresses for the entire Academy history, right?) but... yeah... ugh.

"You're not offending me, I'm just letting you know that it's 'Miss,'" is completely classic and great. Well played, Anne, if that's what you're into. Against all odds, this footage sort of made me like her even more.

Well, if Slumdog Millionaire is the best film of 2008 for SO MANY people, then I guess it is...Not for me anyway, but this big love of others for it elevates it for me, I think.Same with Casablanca, not one of my favorites, but I appreciate it as a classic.And Slumdog Millionaire IS a good picture, that's a fact. (Come on Frank, you know I love surprises, THAT'S A FACT!)

Anyway, I'd rather have this winning over some better film (for me) than, say Crash winning over Brokeback Mountain...

OK, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say Patel's not a lock at all in supporting actor, because it's more likely he'll be nominated in lead. Seriously.

Keisha Castle-Hughes, people.

The only people who've bought the "supporting" bullshit are SAG, and that's just cause they have no choice. It's not like Kate Winslet, where it's been constantly drilled into people over and over again, and where they have to put her there to not split her vote. It's also more fraudulent than Winslet, who I still think can make a case for that categorization.

I really think that, with ballots in their hands, free to choose, people will be checking Patel off as #1 in lead. Hathaway will be first in line, apparently.

She may just be acting, but I guess it's good to know a brother has a chance.

If you feel inclined, re-watch the film. He kind of earns it, and I didn't even notice until the second viewing. Plus he does that weird shuffling of his eyes that I thought only Pruitt Taylor Vince could do.

Anne loved "Slumdog Millionaire". Good for her. Nothing wrong with strongly loving that performance or the film. It was probably red carpet hyperbole, but either way, it shows just how wide a net the love for this film really is, and any remaining doubt that it's going to win best picture should be squashed at this point.

And Cher's big return to the big screen is in a Johnny Knoxville film? Say it ain't so, Cher.

adam k -- i am going to be so horrified if they think Dev Patel is a better actor than Richard Jenkins. I mean Eastwood I can excuse because I'm used to them thinking he's the best of everything. But come on now. Let's give credit where it's due. Jenkins may never have this opportunity again. and he's certainly earned some widespread industry acknowledgement. Patel on the other hand...

anon 2:01 --I TOTALLY agree. Flawless should negate at least two Oscar nominations, I think. What a terribly misguided and over the top performance (and a voice teacher who can't stay on key? UGH. i hate that movie)

On the other hand, as I've said time and time again, knowing how to do something and being able to judge it as an artform are different skills. Painters don't necessarily make the best art critics and so on and so on...

i am 100% positive that many actors (not necessarily Hathaway, I'm just saying) aren't as good at judging acting as film critics. ;) One only has to look at how easily fooled they are by tricks and gimmicks and popular films and sympathetic roles to see this. SAG nominations in particular don't paint a great picture that actors understand how to judge cinema. I mean Joseph Fiennes (SiL) as one of the 5 best actors of 1999? Philip Seymour Hoffman's all time worst performance (Flawless -- i don't even wanna get into how many bad choices that performance holds) as one of the 5 best of its year. EEK.

I don't think that Dev Patel will be anywhere near the lead actor ballot, but supporting actor. Lead actor is way too strong for that to happen. But even if he does manage a lead nod over Richard Jenkins, I don't think that's a big proclamation that Patel's a better actor than Jenkins. It's more about who's amassed the greater support in the end. One's in the best picture frontrunner (and let's face facts, eventual BP winner), while the other is in a little-indie-that-could that came out last spring. It's a numbers game at this point more than anything else.

Even if Dev Patel gets nominated for Lead, what makes people think he'll make it in over Richard Jenkins? There's a fifth spot open even if Jenkins makes it in: Penn, Rourke, Langella, Jenkins and... Eastwood or Pitt or DiCaprio or (according to some people) Patel.

But I've said it before, if that kid from "Skins" gets nominated at the Oscars, I think I might kill myself. Seriously, he only lives down the road from me. I've seen him around! I have friends that know him! It will totally ruin any mystery and allure the Oscars have if he gets nominated!

1. I can definitely see where Nathaniel is going. That said, what you call tricks, others may simply believe to be signifiers. Meryl Streep and accents is a good example. It may be shallow to some, but there's no denying her facility in that department and for some that becomes a sign of of her abilities. We discuss "transformations" in that same tone. That said, those gimmicky hooks aren't the only ways to see good acting, but people seem less likely to agree on the rest.

2. I think Jenkins' is solidly in fourth, Nathaniel. He's been around for a while, people have been talking about his film for months. It's that fifth slot that's odd - and that's why Patel can take it.

I think that Richard Jenkins is very vulnerable. He's going against CLINT and freakin' Benjamin Button in a BP frontrunner. That's hard to combat for a character actor in a film that came out in the spring. Penn, Rourke, Langella, Pitt, and Eastwood.

Are you referring to me? B/c it's not my "turn" to refute a damn thing. But to humor you, Leo never gained any traction for "Titanic" and wasn't expected by most predictors to be nominated, Joseph Fiennes was overshadowed by the ladies in "Shakespeare in Love" and wasn't touted for recognition, Richard Gere could have had a chance if campaigned in supporting, category confusion ruined Leo's chances for "The Departed", and Josh Brolin was overshadowed by Javier Bardem and never gained real traction for a nod for his own. Pitt is looking at a nod following a potent combination of Globes/SAG/BAFTA nods and being in a BP frontrunner. My point still stands.

Well, Fiennes got a SAG and BAFTA nom for Shakespeare, Leo got a Golden Globe nom for Titanic and Richard Gere won a Golden Globe and was nominated for a SAG award for Chicago so... yeah. I just thought i'd throw that out there.

I'd consider Dev Patel as a likely best actor contender if he had a big crying scene. No crying scene = supporting.

At that point, the BAFTA's came after the Oscars, so getting that didn't qualify as predictive value for Fiennes. SAG was also early in its run, so I doubt that was used so easily as an indication that an Oscar nod was likely. Gere winning the comedy Globe still doesn't change that he should have run a supporting campaign like Zeta did. If so, he might have even taken Reilly's slot. He wasn't going to get into the lead lineup. I'd forgotten about Leo getting Globes nodded, but from what I remember of that year, he was always a longshot for a nod, and the heat was on Kate (and here history is repeating itself again).

Wow, I was just being light. My only contribution was that being in a best picture frontrunner doesn't guarantee you a nod, which you then corroborated by giving me other reasons why those actors were snubbed. In fact, these past two years have been notable for the simple fact that best picture nominees are providing less nominations then previous times in history. But sure, I'll give you my reasons I'm not predicting Pitt.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is not a best picture frontrunner

The total domination of this awards season means that we have one best picture contender thus far, and that is Slumdog Millionaire. On the off chance it does stagger, it won't stagger to CCoBM for the simple fact that this epic romance is not really all that loved (it's engendered very few passionate fans), but to WALL.E or The Dark Knight (pending nominations).

The nature of the role The character is so thinly drawn. We get very little bait moments. We get very little actual character. This is the reason Dev Patel is being pushed supporting (because, it might be a leading role, but most people don't see it as a "leading performance" - in terms of things like range, impact, etc). Despite the plot, he's actually a staggeringly passive person MAJOR SPOILER for CCoBB (he didn't even get a big scene for the death of his mother, nor was the moment he left his daughter particularly powerful).

The COMPETITION Even if you assume, as I do, that their Eastwood love doesn't stretch as far as Eastwood-haters would have you think, he's certainly got his fanbase. Jenkins has done the awards rounds well - sneaking into populist line-ups that would ordinarily ignore such small fare and his name is consistently mentioned. One thing to remember - when a performer is talked about often enough for long enough, he/she is often able to sneak through. Johnny Depp and Diane Lane are examples. Jenkins definitely lands in that category.

Also, Pitt was recognized by the populist awards which tend to boost stars (which is why you focus when they don't).

I said that "Benjamin Button" was a frontrunner, not the frontrunner (that's "Slumdog Millionaire"). Either way, I'm keeping Brad Pitt in my predictions for the reasons that I cited. He has more going for him than anyone you mentioned previously.